3 ms·
It's not empty, it's downright hypocritical. I fully accept that not everything benefits from being expressed in objects, which is why hybrid languages like Py
by oliwarner 6y ago
It's not empty, it's downright hypocritical.
I fully accept that not everything benefits from being expressed in objects, which is why hybrid languages like Python are so excellent. But yes, even if some things don't map, keeping OOP around for things that do makes too much sense to ignore.
- dnautics 6y agowhat's a thing that "does make sense?" The common one is "GUIs". But even React has basically taken UI and turned it functional (obviously not pure functional, but most FPs are not Haskell), by way of using distinctly non-OOP patterns to manage detached local state. There are of course plenty of other, less well known functional UI frameworks in their respective functional languages.
- snidane 6y agoState management systems are what OOP is used. It used to be GUIs until React, Elm and such proved that FP style describing the end state is a better fit. "Simulations" can be done in both real time state management OOP style or FP or data centric style with explicit time. Operating systems are a good example for state management OOP. Linux is written in C with OOP techniques. FP with immutabilty of objects would likely not be a good fit because operating systems are expected to just run in thr background and to not waste resources (eg by copying full objects each microsecond). Anything where Erlang shines is another good fit for OOP because its actor model actually is the original vision of OOP - objects reacting to messages.